Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development, Professor of Health Policy and Management, and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is also Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals. His books include
The End of… read more

Comments

After reconsidering my statement of a couple of weeks ago, I've embarrassed myself. If I complain about a lack of vision, I should give an example. OK...

As we look with foreboding at the inevitable leadership of the Chinese economy, still we favorably compare patents, innovation, entrepreneurship as well as Chinese-American point guards. Possibly it's time for us to use our ingenuity, skip a step and move on to the latter 21st Century.

We know what we're facing: 2.8% economic growth -25 year doubling- over 300 years is 4000%+-. Economic growth seems to be tied to a growth in consumption of energy. Agricultural growth is tied to non-renewable petroleum products and water. Many of our most fundamental economic components -housing, for instance- are tied to other non-renewables on a small planet; space.

One thing that we will inevitably do is move our economy from industries tied to consumption of non-renewables, to recyclables. Products will be designed to be remelted and pumped out in the newer fashion. Some products made for a lifetime's use- cradle to grave wedding gifts. Services rather than products: education, entertainment, information. Smith, Marx, and Keynes all looked to the time we had a sufficiency of 'stuff', and eliminated poverty by passing the 'stuff' around. Then, we could all work 30 hour weeks. Possibly spend the rest of our time writing poetry or engaged in orgy's. Sad to say, I'll probably opt for poetry.

We know it's coming- the end of consumption. Any 6th grader can do the math. If we get ahead of it, this silly leadership thing can be resolved.

Realizing - without panic, fear mongering and stress - that the question about sustainability in economic and overall development is putting at stake the future of the human race is only the first part of the progress.We simply can't pump oil forever, because it is going to end, and we can't buy and dump stuff in the landfills eternally too. We need to start educating children how and where things originate, start acting responsibly for every thing we use and on and on. It is both governments' responsibility to enact what it takes for a shift in sustainable direction, and every single individual's, too.Additionally, sustainable does not, and should not mean us "going back in the caves", neither returning to any form of a primitive life. It means responsible attitude, with which technological and economical growth, prosperity and well being of everyone is guaranteed, but without harming the environment. It "only" takes changing the model of living : not "against", but in harmony with nature.

I totally agree that we all need to understand our shared fate and I am commitment to decency for all human beings.

The world situation is changing rapidly, and I think we are in need of an integral method of educating humanity so everyone will be prepared for the many changes coming our way.

Unemployment is on the rise, and hundreds of millions of people who will lose work because the crisis will destroy all the industries that are not vitally important. What will the people do who produced what no one needs any longer? http://www.shadowstats.com/

We are also seeing that protest movements are growing due to the Internet, with all our mutual communications and influence on each other. All humanity, from the ordinary citizens to their governments, is interested in bringing this process under their control and preventing its development. All our modern weapons plus the unpredictable future events can lead us to such disastrous results.

In order for us to prevent all kinds of disasters, civil or even world wars, we need to think in advance about global, integral upbringing of the majority of the population.

I believe that it is impossible to achieve any sustainable development between peoples without mutual responsibility.

There are many various methods and plans, but they are totally incapable of being compared to each other. No one has the answer to this question because it is impossible to achieve any solution between peoples without first seeing everyone as one family.

I think a sustainable development would look something like a round table where everyone, like a family, discuss common problems and you would feel that everyone is equally close to you. Only then could we begin to distribute our common pie and solve the problems between us, only together with each of us and consulting each other and taking all our opinions into consideration. Are we really ready for this? Probably not! But we see that we are all being pushed in this direction. We are discovering that there is no other way to find the answers, because the real issue lies between our relationships with each other.

How can we achieve equality between us? How can we balance these two parts of humanity? The poor, do you not want the rich? The rich, do you see that you can no longer control anything? But you, the rich enjoy managing and gaining much pleasure from the money in your bank account, but now you are in suffering because there are less zeroes there. The continually increasing gains approach is not benefiting society as a whole, so the question I have for you is can society give something else instead of money? Is money the only thing that satisfies all of humanity in today's world?

As an economist, I am familiar with the arguments for specialization and trade. But, as I look at how the world is evolving, I wonder if we would be better off with less trade, reducing transportation emissions and only trading that which is essential e.g., precious minerals or agricultural plants and advice that help a poor nation grow more food. I was in China for the first time and saw how terrible its pollution is (e.g., airports closed as pl=ilots cannot see through small particle emissions which are the most damaging kinds) due to using archaic coal plant technology. Would not a buy local world, with China shifting to domestic production be better net net for the environment and poor people in need of work? Would appreciate your perspectives. It's been a long while since my international course. At a minimum, I think China with its foreign currency wealth should be held to higher environmental standard to be part of WTO.

I wonder if this organization is run by the same people who structured the Obama administration? You don't know 'how' or 'where' to find answers to humanities problems. Then, like the blind pig, having found an acorn, you don't know 'what' to do with it.There is a 'degree of complexity' inherent in the structure of any organization implying the overall capability of the organization. This is an organization of talkers and thinkers involved in advancing the cause of talking and thinking.The foolish world admires the ineffectual thinker while scorning the man with the hammer in his hand.

Alberto Bagnai, ET AL
want the Greek government to abandon the euro – and all other eurozone members to follow suit.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world's economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.